The quality difference between the average P&S and the average DSLR is much greater than the difference between DX and FF. A DSLR can be bought in a price range closer to the average p&S too. You spend more for less improvement with FF.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is Full Frame Overrated?????
- Thread starter Joe Sherwood
- Start date
ocrampix
Senior Member
Well, I had a closer look at the high ISO sample shots of the D3s review on DPR, and I must say that I'm impressed.
If someone were to shoot events in low light, where flash would definitely spoil the special mood and lighting of the scene, then that D3s is the tool to use.
The following sample photo is from that DPR D3s review and was shot at 1/160s ISO 5,000:
Marco
--
http://www.flickr.com/front_curtain
Geomaticsman
Senior Member
You're right. Screw justification. Except for the "reach" (crop factor) FX walks all over DX in every way. No decision here! ;o)
--
Gary -- D3, D300, D60 glass & NAS -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin
http://photographersonlinemagazine.blogspot.com
Canon shooters already have FF options for around $1,000:
1Ds, $919 (was $7,999 MSRP)
5D $1,329 (was $3,299 MSRP)
1Ds, $919 (was $7,999 MSRP)
5D $1,329 (was $3,299 MSRP)
jimmyhua73
Well-known member
Agree. Full frame is not overrated. However, I own an FM2. I love the feel of a modern DSLR compared to the old stuff like FE2. To me, the D100 feels the best (but it is crap when taking pictures, D70 is way better compared to a D100).
And just for your information, a D700 is actually smaller and lighter than your D300.
The huge monsters are the D3, D3S, D3X. These cameras a HUGE as they have the integrated portrait buttons and extra battery slots. Not sure why though.
Finally, I agree with olyflyer. I'm not sure why anyone is trying to justify the costs of these things. That is only necessary if you are running a business. If you like it and want it and can afford it. BUY IT and ENJOY it.
Advantages/disadvantages of D700 vs. D300 is already very well documented.
No it isn't. It's both larger and heavier.
And yet, in 1996 I spent $150 for a 800Mb HardDrive and $150 for 2Mb of RAM. Today, I can get Terabytes of Harddrive space for the same money and Gigs of RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon was selling Full Frame Lightweight Camera Glasses for $1000 in ten years.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon was selling Full Frame Lightweight Camera Glasses for $1000 in ten years.
You're funny. There is plenty of interesting stuff I can afford, but don't go out and buy. That would be silly. I (like most people) have limited resources, and have to prioritize my purchases... which is just another way of saying that in your own mind you justify buying one item over another....
Eric
--
http://www.lumenssolutions.com/
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Well, DX wins not only in crop factor, but weight is also a bit less as well as price when it comes to DX. Anyway, if weight and price is not an issue, FX is definitely a winner over DX.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Everyone on earth has limited resources just that our limits vary. What I meant was that this talk about justifying costs is silly because there is not a single person on this forum who can be the judge over our spending, except ourselves. The only person I have to justify my spendings for, apart for myself, is possibly my wife. I never said you have to spend every penny you have and buy everything you can afford, what I say is that even if a person only takes snaps he/she does not have to justify why he/she is taking those snaps with a D3x and not a cheap P&S. That justification must be done to yourself only.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Of course that's true.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Yes, but no one except you can say if the FX is worth spending money on. No one but you can say if FX is overrated, but that remains your opinion. For some people the price difference means more than just $$$ and base ISO image quality.
My P&S is more expensive that a cheap DSLR but I believe it was worth the extra. Some others may say it was not and that is fine, that's their opinion. You can't really say that the improvements and differences between DX and FX are not enough to justify costs, if I need what only exists in FX cameras, than I have no choice but to pay the price.
Anyway, while you are right about that any DSLR being better than any P&S, the differences are less (if any) than you think, if you have the right P&S and the wrong DSLR + lens. While DR wise a DSLR is always better, resolution wise many P&S beats some DSLRs, especially with the wrong lens on them.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Actually the D700 is 995g without batteries and the D300s is 840g. The D300 is 825g, so it is even lighter. The D700 does not look large, but it is also larger than the D300(s), even if it is ever so little, but it is actually 9mm higher and 3mm thicker.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
No, not really FX won't cure cancer but it would take better images technically. Of course, the talent of the photographer won't change but the image will.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
If the images are mixed yes, it would be a difficult task since you would not know what to look for. However, if identical images are taken with both FX and DX using the same lenses, or the same aperture and equivalent lenses, than it would not be that difficult. Under ideal conditions there is hardly any difference between the cameras, but when the conditions are difficult, like huge contrast or very low light, it would be easy to see the differences.
Anyway, this test belongs to the "justifying costs" part, which is in my opinion pointless. If FX gives me more pleasure it is enough if I am happy with my images. There is no need to start any contest about who can pick the FX images out of a bunch of mixed FX and DX images. I bet you the same, if I'd put a mixed bunch of images taken with a high quality P&S and with a D300 you won't be able to pick which is which.
RomanJohnston
Forum Pro
Instead of just taking snipits of my post, quote and or read the entire post. I stated the diffrences quite well.
And I stand behind all that I said.
I have shot with my D300 and a D3s, minor diffrences are there. Most average shooters will not see a diffrence. Really good shooters will leverage the diffrences and see it, but it isnt a night and day diffrence. You would have to see them side by side and either be shooting in extreeme conditions or really push the files to see any diffrence. And the diffrence in most cases would not be worth the thousand dollars of diffrence in the price for the average shooter.
Were talking 12MP FX to 12MP DX.
D3X is a bit diffrent...of course. More MP, better DR, better color....from what I hear. I still have yet to shoot one.
I have shot MF digital and thats a whole nother ballgame. The diffrence is staggering....but so is the price.
Roman
New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
And I stand behind all that I said.
I have shot with my D300 and a D3s, minor diffrences are there. Most average shooters will not see a diffrence. Really good shooters will leverage the diffrences and see it, but it isnt a night and day diffrence. You would have to see them side by side and either be shooting in extreeme conditions or really push the files to see any diffrence. And the diffrence in most cases would not be worth the thousand dollars of diffrence in the price for the average shooter.
Were talking 12MP FX to 12MP DX.
D3X is a bit diffrent...of course. More MP, better DR, better color....from what I hear. I still have yet to shoot one.
I have shot MF digital and thats a whole nother ballgame. The diffrence is staggering....but so is the price.
Roman
--
New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
colinadams
Forum Enthusiast
I do that with the 300 (natural air show - dragonflies). But my arm will only last for about 5 minutes. So I use a tripod to rest the camera upon between the action (sometimes I shoot from the tripod too).
Robert Hoy
Senior Member
If you're after large DOF, like the photo you linked to, there's no advantage or usefulness of using a 35mm film camera instead of your aps-c dSLRs. Just buy a 10-24 or whatever super wide angle lens for it.
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
and it is hard to tell the difference from my DX and FX images.
They both have their place and no one needs to get their nose bent.
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
They both have their place and no one needs to get their nose bent.
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum